Title
Torreon vs. Aparra, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 188493
Decision Date
Dec 13, 2017
A cargo truck accident caused by a driver with a student permit led to fatalities and injuries. The Supreme Court ruled that testimonial evidence suffices for lost earning capacity claims, awarding damages while adjusting interest rates.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188493)

Procedural History

After the 1989 accident that killed Rodolfo and his daughter Monalisa and injured two others, petitioners filed a criminal case (Reckless Imprudence) and thereafter a separate civil case for damages (Civil Case No. 3593). The trial court rendered judgment finding respondents liable in quasi‑delict and awarded various damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed liability but deleted the award for lost earning capacity (actual damages) for Rodolfo on the ground that documentary proof was required. Petition for review to the Supreme Court followed; the Supreme Court modified the appellate decision.

Factual Background

On disembarking from M/V Island Traders at Jetafe wharf, Rodolfo, Monalisa, Johanna and Abellana boarded an overcrowded cargo truck owned/operated by Simolde. Aparra (the mechanic) started driving while the official driver Caballes was momentarily absent; when Caballes returned he sat beside Aparra but did not take control. Aparra swerved to avoid obstacles on a narrow, pot‑holed road and the truck fell off the wharf, causing fatalities and injuries. Evidence at trial included eyewitness/testimonial accounts and testimony by an acting traffic investigator (SPO2 Torniado) regarding the truck, road conditions and that Aparra produced only a student driver’s permit.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings on Liability

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found Caballes and Aparra grossly negligent: Aparra for driving despite inexperience and lacking proper license; Caballes for allowing an inexperienced person to drive and failing to exercise control. The Court of Appeals also held owner Simolde solidarily liable under the employer‑liability principle in Article 2180 for failing to exercise due diligence in selecting/supervising employees.

Issue of Standing (Abellana)

The Supreme Court addressed Abellana’s standing: because she failed to reserve her civil action when the criminal case was filed, her civil claim was deemed instituted with the criminal action under Rule 111 and she is barred from recovering twice for the same act. The Court accepted the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the civil case only with respect to petitioner Vivian.

Legal Basis for Civil Liability (Quasi‑delict and Vicarious Liability)

The Court applied Article 2176 to establish liability for acts of negligence constituting a quasi‑delict (requirements: damage, negligence, and causal relation). It reiterated that employer liability under Article 2180 gives rise to a presumption (juris tantum) against the employer when an employee’s negligence causes harm; the employer must prove due diligence in selection and supervision to escape liability. Simolde’s testimony that passengers sometimes rode the cargo truck “at their own risk” and his failure to control employees were held to show lack of due diligence, sustaining solidary liability.

Loss of Earning Capacity — Evidentiary Standard

The core legal dispute concerned the deletion by the Court of Appeals of the award for Rodolfo’s lost earning capacity on grounds of insufficient documentary proof. The Supreme Court held that documentary proof is not a prerequisite in civil cases: claims are to be established by a preponderance of evidence under Rule 133, and competent testimonial evidence may suffice to enable a fair and reasonable estimate of lost earnings. The Court relied on prior decisions (e.g., Pleyto v. Lomboy and Philippine Airlines) accepting testimony of persons with personal knowledge (spouse, employer, co‑workers, officers) to prove income where documentary records are absent.

Formula and Method for Computing Lost Earning Capacity

The Court applied the settled formula endorsed in jurisprudence (derived from Pleyto, Negros Navigation and People v. Wahiman): life expectancy = (2/3) × (80 − age at death); net annual earnings = 50% of gross annual income (to account for living and necessary business expenses); loss of earning capacity = life expectancy × net annual earnings. This formula is presumptive and applied where plaintiffs lack actuarial or statistical proof; it produces a reasonable estimate for compensation purposes.

Computation Applied to Rodolfo’s Case

Factually, Rodolfo was 48 years old at death and testified (by employer Abellana) to have been earning approximately P15,000 monthly. The Court converted P15,000 monthly to P180,000 gross annual income. Life expectancy: (2/3) × (80 − 48) = (2/3) × 32 = 21.33 years. Net annual earnings = 50% of P180,000 = P90,000. Loss of earning capacity = 21.33 × P90,000 = P1,919,700. The Supreme Court reinstated and awarded P1,919,700 as actual damages for Rodolfo’s lost earning capacity.

Other Damage Items: Civil Indemnity, Moral and Exemplary Damages

The Court affirmed mandatory civil indemnity (Article 2206) and awarded P50,000 to the heirs of Rodolfo and P50,000 to the heirs of Monalisa. The Court affirmed moral damages of P50,000 for each set of heirs (total P100,000) and upheld exemplary damages (P10,000) based on gross negligence by respondents. The Court explained that moral damages compensate for mental anguish while exemplary damages are punitive and discretionary, available where conduct is wanton or grossly negligent.

Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses

Given the imposition of exemplary damages and the protracted litigation, the Supreme Court awarded increased attorney’s fees (P100,000) and litigation expenses (P50,000) to petitioner Vivian. The Court noted that attorney’s fees are allowable when exemplary damages are awarded or where a separate civil action has been filed.

Interest on the Judgment — Modification and Rationale

The Court modified the interest regime applied by the Court of Appeals. It held that moratory interest on unliquidated claims is discretionary and generally inappropriate where awarding actual damages already compensates the heirs; however, interest on the final judgment is appropriate. Citing Eastern Shipping but applying the subsequent BSP Monetary Board circulars recognized in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, the Court corrected the appellate imposition of 12% post‑finality interest to 6% per annum (the prevailing legal interest rate after July 1, 2013). The Supreme Court ordered legal interest at 6% per annum to run from fin

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.